tv [untitled] November 26, 2010 12:00am-12:30am PST
alarming to me. we continue to have meetings, up until as late as this week, as related to the transfer of a project, and it is real important to expand child care and sort of a lack of commitment and a statement on the part of some of the project sponsors that money is the problem when, as you know, money is generally a problem for most of the projects, and epically these projects are always in short fall, and it seems to me that child care has not been sufficiently prioritized in terms of what our objectives are, and i can reflect on the fact that we probably would not have chub care downstairs even here at city hall had not been for the attorney who had been instrumental in guiding the development of designing the retrofit of city hall and her being adamant that we were going to have child care in this building. one of the things that you find is that if you really planned
for child care, you can make it optimal, and we had to shoehorn a child care in the building and having our children in the basement, which is not the optimal setting, having to create outdoor space for children, and we certainly have had in my experience significant challenges even negotiating with the puc to negotiate outdoor space and to meet the standards that exist, and my colleagues know that the state has a very significant -- a high bar, " for child care, which is not sending that can be dropped into commercial space. we certainly have examples where pg&e or others have made investments into on-site child care and have encouraged a loyal and more productive work force. i wanted knowledge that my
warrior in trading at, the coordinator has really been part of my path in this legislation over the last year to make sure that we are making investments to expand a real estate portfolio, because at you know, without that investment, the economics of child care are not great. we even of circumstances where we subsidize the real estate, where people in child care are not paid a wage for living in san francisco, so i really feel that this legislation assures and insists that the city to a better job. less than half of the families who once licensed child care in the city can get it, and we talk
about making this a more family- friendly city. i think that we need to encourage more development, make more space available, and ensure that we are leading the way, and expanding access for child care. this planning want to start out? so i want to welcome mr. sullivan. i want to thank the planning department and the city attorney's office for their help in drafting this. >> thank you, supervisor cook dufty. i am with the planning department. -- supervisor dufty. this would require an agency or pretty developer to prepare a feasibility study for on-site child care, whenever it does one
vote of two things. when it constructs a new building, leases more than 50% of a new building for more than one year, or alters more than 50% of the space in an existing building. the supervisor's office has been working with us to work on the legislation. we do thank them for being amenable. the planning commission heard this, and we have recommended several modifications. the first modification is that this provide -- apply to city projects. it would apply to both private developers who lease city-owned property, and the commission and the department feel it should be applied only to city occupied projects only. the second has several components to it. it is refocusing on the requirement of the goal of this legislation, which is to provide adequate child care facilities.
in that, the department wants to -- some of the board and in doing the feasibility studies, the department of youth and families agency, we would like them to provide all of the applicant data related to a specific project. there is an agency of their -- out there. and we would what the analysis done prior to any funding approval. ideally, just a city agency or a private developer, and then after, the provision of childcare is not required in this legislation. this only requires to see what is feasible and what is needed.
there was a working group that recommended that this be modified to require the city agencies to develop office projects that create a need for additional child care and decide not to provide the child care as part of the project to provide evidence that they fairly considered providing these services and why they cannot be provided. so those are the three recommendations that the planning committee made, and i am here to answer any questions. thank you. note supervisor dufty -- supervisor dufty: if we can bring up some other people? >> good evening, supervisors. i am a minister -- in administrator -- i am and administrator -- an
administrator at dcyf. our sister departments, when they are in the process of developing a feasibility studies, we do have the resources and data to chop -- talk about child care with them. we think this is a step in the right direction. we need to look at the lack of supply of child care, as supervisor dufty pointed out. many cannot find affordable child care. the other point that i want to make is that we have 30,000 children under the age of 13 where all parents are in the labour force, and they are over $1.40 million annually, so there is an economic imperative here, as well. sadly, the work force is not immune to the crisis of available child care, so we want
to make sure that child care is available for the employees of san francisco. supervisor dufty not: do you wao comment on some of the things that ms. sullivan mentioned? >> we do agree that we do have the resources to understand the supply and quality of child care. we also of expertise and can look at what would be the components of a feasibility study, so we are willing to partner in that effort. we also agree that there is not a provision to mandate a sister department to require the child care. we do feel strongly that if the
feasibility indicates that it is feasible that there had better be sufficient reason and evidence as to what the department -- hoping that funding would be held back until an acceptable response is provided. >> and what about -- supervisor dufty: and then what about the requirements that apply only to some? >> cockill leading in impact fee and requiring developers who are subject to the impact fee, so in that instance, we feel that private developers are subject to the providing on-site child care or the resources to build a child care. that is in place right now and has been for a couple of decades. we believe strongly that we
would like to be able to have them look at the feasibility. supervisor dufty: redevelopment? >> in the instance of redevelopment, we are working in partnership, and they are looking at including child care in their projects. i think there was some concern around state requirements. their resources have some protection. i think our position is that if there is a project that receives significant city funding, like the trans bay, we would encourage them to build up child care.
my understanding is that they're subject to the current impact fee. supervisor cook dufty -- supervisor dufty: it turns out that sometimes things are not going to happen, and then there are many problems, and there are big funding gaps for the trans bay project. there is a lot that has to be developed, and it is important for us to get some of the moral imperative, and this is to pressure those to provide child care in a thoughtful manner that can be home -- can be successful.
can you talk about the economics and land cost versus the ability to operate? >> as supervisor dufty was explaining, it has been about four years of discussion to look at the buildout of a very thoughtful community that is bringing hundreds of thousands of people. rda is planning to build some child care centers in the residential component, and one of our concerns is about going back after the building is built, in using your term about shoehorning child care in, i
have spoken with many of the supervisors. this creates a need for this to be thought about it before develop and. this costs around $350 a square foot, so this is a significant cost up front. it allows you to have appropriate space. there is a sweet spot about the number of children that can be served. ideally, we're looking to raise the compensation of the work force is so that a young professional makes $26,000.
living in san francisco, you know this is unacceptable, so in order to do that, we have to make sure we can have sustainability. supervisor dufty: i am not sure that the trans they would qualify for that. -- trans dateb -- ay. -- trans bay would qualify for that. >> in our conversations with them, looking at the different parcels and blocks that they have carved out for this development, we have located four potential sites where a child care center could live and have contiguous outdoor space.
it first started out with a conversation with them about the mezzanine level of the trans bay area, hautand there is an outdor space connected to it, and that could be related to it. that quickly changed to different areas within the project. now, we are at an impasse. now, we do not have any money, and my comment to that is if we wait to get money, the building will be built, and we will not have child care. ideally, i would like for us to be clear with development. there is a significant amount of city resources going there, and we're thinking about the community that will be served, much like a park. like a library, we prioritize that.
supervisor maxwell: in the beginning, they did not have any money. it cost billions and billions of dollars, and they started out with zero. you're absolutely right. while we have to decide is what we want and then come up with the money. >> supervisor, let me share with you that at one of the meetings, they were concerned about having child care because they felt that it would eventually be a site for a terrorist attack, and i thought it was one of the more ridiculous things that had been presented to me, because my daughter was downstairs, and i did not think that city hall would be high on anybody's list, but it would never occurred to me, because my child is close to the year, and that is unfathomable to me, some of the things that we have experienced and how we have to do battle
with these projects, so, colleagues, i am content with the planning department recommendation, exclusive of the requirement for city occupied projects only, because i think that there are projects that haven't seen the the id investment through redevelopment or ways that we stimulate or catalyze projects. i do not want to lose the opportunity to make sure there is that a feasibility study. >> -- supervisor maxwell: you are content? >> yes, with the exception of the first one. i am advised by the city attorney that those could be incorporated into the legislation. supervisor maxwell: ok. >> i just wanted to add one piece.
this was brought in as a source of revenue, and it might cover one, maybe two, in those moneys would not be available, and then we may lose the opportunity for kids to be able to be in a quality setting. supervisor maxwell: all right, supervisor mar? supervisor mar: you are talking about accepting the other two recommendations? i have a question, because it
seems there is an unman need for child care largely concentrated in bayview hunters point, wrotin developing a measurement tool, a map shows the tremendous need is in the southeast neighborhoods. high-quality child care, especially in the lower-income neighborhoods. >> yes, thank you for bringing that to our attention. it was based on the 2007 impact needs assessment, and we are hoping to update that with the current census data. the emphasis behind this is the recent findings from each of care nexus study that looks across the city for child care needs. being a city where we are subject to catastrophic events,
such as an earthquake comment and they bring them into the city with them for care so they are not separated from them in the case of such an event, so we look at all of this as working towards the legislation. you're absolutely correct that there are some neighborhoods where the need is extremely high, but child care is affordable, and families do not necessarily use child care just in their neighborhoods but maybe where they were or where a friend might work because of transportation needs, and the city needs to improve the access, and we need to focus on those neighborhoods. supervisor maxwell: all right, any further public comment on this item? public comment?
>> so this is a step in the right direction. my name is francisco. we have a population of 819,000, but most people do not know that on any given day we have over 1 million people coming into the city. we need to find out how many of the women and men who have children want to have or desire to have good child care in the city. as has been stated in a very superficial way, 30% of the young people do not have a good child care. one of you stated that we are supposed to be family friendly, but we are not friendly to our children, and the supervisors
should state again and again that we care for our children, because in any civilization, when you take a stand for the children, you go to a better place, but if you are greedy and only think about the developers and only think about your own pocket and think about things that are not posted to the family, we go to a worse place. they are supposed to have compassion. we have very clever people in the city, and again and again, when you meet smart people who come to work in the city, they do not have good child care. some have a young ones, and i have seen this in action. i have seen supervisor mar with his little girl, take her to the museums and so on and so forth.
that is the view from a distance. supervisor bevan dufty. and there are others, and we can talk to them. natalee expanded to city projects but private developers. if you want to come here and make money, care for our children. if you cannot take care of our children, then go take a hike. i say that all of the time. that includes the big developers to come here. they do not care about families. this is in the right direction, but we need mandates.
i am with a council, and i want you to know that members of the group are looking at the feasibility of providing on-site child care. juppe care space is at a premium. the investments held bill child care over the years, but the gap between supply and demand is huge. over 40% of parents are looking for child care. at our group, we have reached out to the business community many times. we have tried to in show employers the importance of providing on-site child care and the economic investment that that demonstrates. both the federal and state buildings provide on-site child care. we think it would be really great if the city can also
follow suit and provide that in the city, providing much needed child care on site. i also want to let you know that the san francisco child care providers association submitted a letter of support for this legislation. unfortunately, my colleague was not able to be here in person. i just wanted to let you know that, and we want to thank supervisor dufty for his leadership in introducing this legislation. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am lisa. again, we would like to move forward in support of this ordinance. the first time we visited all of the child care facilities in the city, you are right, supervisor dufty, we cannot stuff them into places and after the fact try to fix them up. it is not on a cost-effective,
but what you end up with in the end is not the quality we want for the children. we looked comparatively across counties, and we see in san francisco, and we hear from our providers, when we look at the elements of quality in regards to facilities, of programs do not -- our programs do not rank, and access to water sources, and then having to have transitions four or five times a day. again, elements of quality have to be prepared to and planned for. -- have to be planned for. we are a family friendly city. this is to be a leader in this area. thank you again, supervisor dufty, and i think the supervisors as a whole for child care in the city. -- i thank the supervisors.
>> i am glad that supervisor mar mentioned where the children are in the city. san francisco is projected by 205052 almost have no children, it and i know that years ago, back at the fillmore, people were talking about this max exodus of families, and they were having problems with child depopulation -- about a mass exodus. there is this train that is trying to eliminate the black community, class 4 community, in terms of people who are not necessarily black but just do not fit the new projected class of san francisco.
this ordinance that you are putting throat is with some of the things that are coming up that are going to attempt, i should say, attempt, because we are fighting, and we need to stop fighting, but those things to get those who have children out of this. there has to be a decision made that you're either for supporting people -- people are projecting in 20505 that there are not going to be very many children in san francisco. then that means that there is a plot in the plan to make sure that those projections stange, and so we know that that train is moving